WSP00897 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The doctrine itself was the natural legal consequence of water utilization in the arid and semi-arid part of the country where it was understood that there would not be enough to go around. Based upon the fact that the water supply could not meet the rapidly growing demands of industry and agriculture with the water storage facilities then available, the first appropriator of water for some beneficial purpose was recognized as having the better right to the extent of actual use. Accordingly, under state law many rivers and streams in the West became fully appropriated by the end of the nineteenth century. In times of shortage, the more recent appropr ia tors suffe red. Economically, the doctrine made good sense. The only federal activity in western water law was manifested in the federal government's acquiescence in local state law. The Act of 1866 (Ed. Mining Act of 1866) gave for mal sanction to appropriations of water on public land, whether made before or after the act, provided they conformed to state or territorial laws. The Act of 1870 (Ed. Mining Act of 1870) provided that aU federal land patents, as well as preemption or homestead rights, would be granted subject to water rights accrued and vested under state law. Finally, the Desert Land Act of 1877 made all nonnavigable waters of the public domain public in nature, subject to the plenary control of the states, with the right in each state to fashion for itself the system of law under whic:h water rights might be perfected. In combination, the Acts of 1866, 1870, and 1877 effected a complete cessation of the government's control over all of the nonnavigable waters arising on the public domain to the western states (Simms, 1979, pp. 67- 68) . 'As Simms noted, during settlement of the West, the Federal Government did not open all lands to purchase, homesteading, or other methods of acquisition by individuals. Some lands were retained by the government for its own specific purposes. These included military reservations, other government installations, and Indian reservations. According to Simms, "U.S. Indian policy at the time was one of assimilation - Indians were to be placed on reservations in order to be schooled in the ways of the Europeans, and ultimately when they became competitive (usually in farming) their trust lands were to have been individually allotted" (Simms, 1979, p. 69). -2-